The Bundy Trial: When Justice Fails

[Special T]

Compareing to water rights is apples to oranges. It would be a fair comparison if the Bundys weren’t paying for the grazing rights and one day they walked in and said now you pay??? The Bundy family paid grazing rights from the 40’s to the 90’s and then stopped paying while thousands of other ranchers still pay. Try not paying your taxes for 20 years and then pull a gun on them when they knock on your door to collect, I don’t think that would work out in your favor.

Yes there may have been mistakes made that resulted in his release. I wouldn’t be ready to award him with an innocent commendation let’s call it what it is, getting off on a technicality. Sorry I can’t support law breakers.

I would happen to guess the reasoning for the fees in the 40s-70s was quite different than the 90s and today.

I would happen to guess there arnt all that many folks on here with extensive property right, and contract law.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Boss .300 winmag]

Has the true reasons ever really been published about why from the BLM on thier quest to kick the Bundy’s off the land? Plus why the Bundy’s quite paying, vs taking on the BLM in court. Wonder if we’ll really ever know.

[Special T]

Has the true reasons ever really been published about why from the BLM on thier quest to kick the Bundy’s off the land? Plus why the Bundy’s quite paying, vs taking on the BLM in court. Wonder if we’ll really ever know.

I have not read a really good synopsis. I don't think we have seen one for a couple of reasons.  The media attention revolved around all the redneck with guns and the BLM armed occupation. This is a much simpler storyline that appeals to both side on the issue. The root cause is more dry and legalize and better suited for court than a good story.  A bunch of the info of the politician arm twisting to make a realistate deal has come out but isn't as interesting at this point.

I would love to see some "neutral" writer put a bunch of these facts together in a book or a youtube series.

Many conservatives and even libertarian leaning ones always hold back and reserve judgement till after the facts come out. In many leadership books I've read they discuss the conundrum  of waiting for all the facts to make a decision. The sweet spot seems to be the 65-80% mark. Start off with 2 little info and your likely to be wrong too often. If you wait till you have 99% of the information your too late to effect meaningful change. Your batting average will be stellar but you won't actually accomplish much.

This difference in thought process is born out in the mind set of 2 group of sucessful workers who are good at what they do but are near polar opposite in thinking.  The salesman and the professional tradesmen. The best salesmen embrace failure as part of the process. It is best exemplified by this mind set. A salesman makes one sale out of ten. When he hits the 8th no he says "Hurray I only need one more NO or failure to make the sale!" By the extreme opposite the professional tradesmen stews over a small % of failure. Most of us fall into to one of these catagories to some degree.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[timberfaller]

All this talk and no one remembers Harry Ried's roll in the Nevada fiasco!!!

No one remembers the Portland trial and ITS findings and dismissal!!

If you've never been involved with "water rights", "grazing rights" and "Lease agreements"(with state or Feds),  you probably don't know much about the "real" issues with the likes of the Bundy's and other cattlemen and farmers.

Short term memory loss,  Bundy's tried to pay his grazing fees, the BLM refused payment(hint see Harry R.)!!

Ask yourself this question, Why would the "government" withhold(hide)evidence?? Numerous times!!

[Sandberm]

So...the whole reason Bundy did not pay his grazing fees was because he was having to make the check out to the Federal government rather than the state government? Because he says the constitution forbids federally owned land?

[KFhunter]

All this talk and no one remembers Harry Ried's roll in the Nevada fiasco!!!

No one remembers the Portland trial and ITS findings and dismissal!!

If you've never been involved with "water rights", "grazing rights" and "Lease agreements"(with state or Feds),  you probably don't know much about the "real" issues with the likes of the Bundy's and other cattlemen and farmers.

Short term memory loss,  Bundy's tried to pay his grazing fees, the BLM refused payment(hint see Harry R.)!!

Ask yourself this question, Why would the "government" withhold(hide)evidence?? Numerous times!!

 

Solar farms, China, Harry Reid, Water for a new housing development...


yes I remember it.  I suspect the unwillingness to let THAT all come out is why the Bundy's walked.

[DOUBLELUNG]

Justice didn't fail, unless you consider Justice shorthand for the US Department of Justice.  The DOJ failed.  Personally I think the Bundys are scum and crooks, but when scum and crooks are prosecuted and the prosecution bungles prosecuting the case through incompetence and malfeasance, judges properly dismiss the charges.  That is our Constitution at work.  I wish they had competently and legally prosecuted both the Oregon and Nevada cases, they didn't, and as an American I support the proper actions of the judges in these cases.  I also think it is a shame the crooks got off scot free, but that is solely on the US attorneys who improperly tried the cases. 

I hope BLM proceeds promptly with future trespass livestock grazing cases and they are competently prosecuted.  The Bundys are a cancer on the western livestock industry, and a slap in the face to honest law abiding ranchers who pay their fees to graze our federal lands.

[KFhunter]

Justice didn't fail, unless you consider Justice shorthand for the US Department of Justice.  The DOJ failed.  Personally I think the Bundys are scum and crooks, but when scum and crooks are prosecuted and the prosecution bungles prosecuting the case through incompetence and malfeasance, judges properly dismiss the charges.  That is our Constitution at work.  I wish they had competently and legally prosecuted both the Oregon and Nevada cases, they didn't, and as an American I support the proper actions of the judges in these cases.  I also think it is a shame the crooks got off scot free, but that is solely on the US attorneys who improperly tried the cases. 

I hope BLM proceeds promptly with future trespass livestock grazing cases and they are competently prosecuted.  The Bundys are a cancer on the western livestock industry, and a slap in the face to honest law abiding ranchers who pay their fees to graze our federal lands.

I don't disagree with what you've said, but do you not think there were larger issues at play?  Do you think that the BLM was totally legit and above reproach in the actions leading up to the Bundy revolt and non-payment?   

[Eric M]

Has the true reasons ever really been published about why from the BLM on thier quest to kick the Bundy’s off the land? Plus why the Bundy’s quite paying, vs taking on the BLM in court. Wonder if we’ll really ever know.

I was just talking to someone about this a week or so ago. They were arguing in favor of the Bundy's and I asked why didn't they try to fight it in court first? Was it just stubbornness or....?

[dwils233]

So...the whole reason Bundy did not pay his grazing fees was because he was having to make the check out to the Federal government rather than the state government? Because he says the constitution forbids federally owned land?

This argument by Bundy always makes me wonder if he understands where the land in Nevada came from? The US federal government literally owned the land as a result of the Mexican Cession treaty. If you don't believe that the US government can own land then you probably shouldn't reside or work in anything besides the original colonies. Everything else was purchased or acquired by the Federal government 

[jmscon]

Unfortunately this is going to make more people feel entitled. Going unchecked and poorly prosecuted is sending a message that others should go ahead and do it too.

I know of a cattleman in NE WA who would voluntarily pay all the private land owners a fee to graze his cattle on their property. When he passed his son took over and decided he wasn’t going to pay anyone. I was told he felt as though it was his right to graze his cattle up there. The private land owner can’t demand a fee and has to build a fence to keep the cattle out. Some care others don’t.

Greed is what has driven these people, not a statement on whether or not the government can own property, or whether they can charge a fee for grazing rights. It’s “I want what you have and I’m not going to pay for it!”

[KFhunter]

Unfortunately this is going to make more people feel entitled. Going unchecked and poorly prosecuted is sending a message that others should go ahead and do it too.

I know of a cattleman in NE WA who would voluntarily pay all the private land owners a fee to graze his cattle on their property. When he passed his son took over and decided he wasn’t going to pay anyone. I was told he felt as though it was his right to graze his cattle up there. The private land owner can’t demand a fee and has to build a fence to keep the cattle out. Some care others don’t.

Greed is what has driven these people, not a statement on whether or not the government can own property, or whether they can charge a fee for grazing rights. It’s “I want what you have and I’m not going to pay for it!”

My family used to lease quite a bit of private land and we paid for it.  Typically there was a good deal of fencing to sweeten the offer (this is where I came in  ) and we ran a lot of new fence lines etc.  We never let cattle roam all around...

This is free range country though, so really (legally) it's the landowners onus to fence cattle out - rather then the other way around....but cattle end up dead doing it that way, and you end up with folks hating you, and hating your cows.  I'm not sure there is a place for free range in this country anymore, too many people now.

I've always held the notion that responsible cattlemen do all they can to control where their cattle are, reach out to adjacent property owners and either lease from them or keep their cows out of their property, it's just the right thing to do regardless of legality.   

Unfortunately there's a few who hold to the old notion that his cows can go wherever they darn well please.  It makes all of us look bad.

[DOUBLELUNG]

Justice didn't fail, unless you consider Justice shorthand for the US Department of Justice.  The DOJ failed.  Personally I think the Bundys are scum and crooks, but when scum and crooks are prosecuted and the prosecution bungles prosecuting the case through incompetence and malfeasance, judges properly dismiss the charges.  That is our Constitution at work.  I wish they had competently and legally prosecuted both the Oregon and Nevada cases, they didn't, and as an American I support the proper actions of the judges in these cases.  I also think it is a shame the crooks got off scot free, but that is solely on the US attorneys who improperly tried the cases. 

I hope BLM proceeds promptly with future trespass livestock grazing cases and they are competently prosecuted.  The Bundys are a cancer on the western livestock industry, and a slap in the face to honest law abiding ranchers who pay their fees to graze our federal lands.

I don't disagree with what you've said, but do you not think there were larger issues at play?  Do you think that the BLM was totally legit and above reproach in the actions leading up to the Bundy revolt and non-payment?   

No. And No.  But I don't agree with Cliven Bundy's actions, at the core I think they were driven by greed and laziness.  The rest was frustration and window dressing to try to justify nonpayment. 

[Special T]

I'm no lawyer but my best guess is this.
The burden of proof normally resides with the person brining the lawsuit. The Bundies had 2 choices. 1 not pay and have the BLM sue them.  The BLM then has the burden of proof that the Bundies are breaking the law/overstepping thier property rights. ( remember water, mining, hunting  and other rights can be held without physical ownership).  If the Bundies brought the suit the burden of proof would be on them. They would have to finance the lawyers, researchers and all manner of resources to make the case.

In a perfect world they would have talked to an attourney before they quit paying, started keeping records, doing research, finding supportive documents. 10 years is a long time to do part time research. It also would have made it much easier and clearer to support them.

"We" want this kind of perfect senerio. It makes it much easier to support. The Bundies situation is a mess. Part of that is thier doing, a big part of it is BECAUSE of the alternative motives that were hidden from us, that are now more apparent.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[KFhunter]

Phill I suggest you take it to the Bundy mega thread already going in Off Topics